2 Year Time Limit Trend

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Hi!

I just wanted to alert people that Jet2 now appear to be citing the 2 year time limit for 261/2004 claims.

My friend has attempted to claim with Jet2 for a flight back in 2009 and received a letter stating that the time limit for claims is 2 years.

This was originally Thomson's excuse for non-payment so this interpretation seems to have been adopted by Jet2.

Sorry if this is in the wrong place but I am now wondering if this will start to filter down from other airlines too.

Mark2spark

In the meantime, BA and EJ continue to pay out on claims for flights of over 2 yrs ago :undecided

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Mark2spark wrote: »

In the meantime, BA and EJ continue to pay out on claims for flights of over 2 yrs ago :undecided

I know it's most perplexing.

My court claim to Thomson has gone in and they have until 23 April to respond. I am guessing they will acknowledge and defend.

Mark2spark

But as per other posts on the Thomson thread, it's likely that the defence will consist of copy and paste hogwash.
I look forward to seeing it anyway

Ich_2

Ryanair now seem to have started doing this as well

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I am now starting to wonder if this might go the way of the unfair bank charges fiasco - I am thinking the airlines will take this to the supreme court for a proper ruling??

romanby1

I too think the "2 year rule" being quoted is to put it politely Hog Wash.
I have received the same defence and it is obviously "Copy and Paste". Some of the paragraph numbers were duplicated and also out of sequence.
I think a 5 year old child could have made a better job of it.
261/2004 and the judgement in October last year are Statuary Instruments within the EEC and supersede Montreal etc.

Vauban

romanby1 wrote: »

I too think the "2 year rule" being quoted is to put it politely Hog Wash.
I have received the same defence and it is obviously "Copy and Paste". Some of the paragraph numbers were duplicated and also out of sequence.
I think a 5 year old child could have made a better job of it.
261/2004 and the judgement in October last year are Statuary Instruments within the EEC and supersede Montreal etc.

261/04 doesn't trump Montreal - but the European Court has ruled it is consistent with it, as I understand it.

romanby1

Vauban wrote: »

261/04 doesn't trump Montreal - but the European Court has ruled it is consistent with it, as I understand it.

261/2004 deals specifically with compensation for denied boarding and delays etc. whereas Montreal is more general.
The compensation payable for delay is more onerous on the airlines and is applicable throughout the EEC.
The following link is worth a read. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:046:0001:0007:en:PDF
It sets out 261 in laymans language.

Vauban

romanby1 wrote: »

261/2004 deals specifically with compensation for denied boarding and delays etc. whereas Montreal is more general.
The compensation payable for delay is more onerous on the airlines and is applicable throughout the EEC.
The following link is worth a read. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:046:0001:0007:en:PDF
It sets out 261 in laymans language.

That link isn't 261 in layman's language - it's 261 in its entirety! But no less easy to understand for that!

romanby1

Vauban wrote: »

That link isn't 261 in layman's language - it's 261 in its entirety! But no less easy to understand for that!

I stand corrected.